Tuesday, July 1, 2014

July 1, 2014, UPDATE: In a pickle... and some interesting speculation.

       I am in a pickle because recording my dealings with state representatives and others on this blog creates discomfort for the people I am trying to work with. Naturally, they do not want me to put them in a bad light on this blog. But, how can I put people in a bad light if they are on the right side of the issues being discussed on this blog. Are they unsure of their own position on the issue? Are they afraid of firmly standing up for what they believe is right? Here is the bottom line of my argument:

"Good neighbors do their civic duty to support and defend our Supreme Laws of the land." 

    Can our state representatives take a stand on that notion? Even after taking their Oath of Office, our representatives have wobbly legs when it comes to making a firm inarguable statement like the one above.

     Several months ago, I attended a conservative group's meeting. Representative Joel Kretz was there to speak about his efforts at the state house in Olympia, WA. After his speech, I asked him a question, "If a constituent called your office and informed you of some bureaucrats disregarding our state and federal constitutions, would you, or could you, contact the bureaucrats and inform them that you do not approve of disregarding our Supreme Law of the Land?"
   Kretz replied, "Yes."
    Of course, he replied yes in front of a crowd of constituents, but remember the correspondence I had with him? His quote from and email he sent to me:
Unfortunately, as a State Representative, I am bound by ethical restraints which prohibit me from providing legal advice, or intervening in this matter. If there is some requirement in the RCW that you believe should be changed, that is something that might be the subject of a bill, and something we could look into. 
     Instead of holding his fellow PUBLIC SERVANTS accountable to their Oath of Office, Kretz wants to write a bill???? This leads to an interesting observation. An observation that expands on a statement I made in my May 28 UPDATE:
"Our weak legislators don't want to stick their neck out and hold people accountable to their Oath of Office to support our Supreme Law of the Land."
      So, how do you avoid confronting an error on the part of your colleagues and the executives overseeing the bureaucracy without embarrassing them or calling them out on their error? You change the target of the error from an individual government employee, to a law. It is not the government employee's fault, it is the legislation's fault. The "legislation" is held accountable to "support and defend our Supreme Law of the Land," while individual government employees are not accountable to "support and defend our Supreme Law of the Land...."... Hmmm... WTF???  
     Here is the thinking of our legislators (our representatives), "The individual government employee didn't make an ERROR which he ought to be held accountable for, rather the law was poorly written... therefore, my constituent who is suffering from the ERROR of individual government employees needs to work with me to get the law modified." That makes everyone happy and no individual government employee is held accountable to supporting and defending our Supreme Law of the Land. MY GOD! HOW RIDICULOUS AND SLIMY IS THAT? HOW COWARDLY!!! HOW WEAK! THEY CAN'T EVEN STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH OF OUR SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!! What is spinning around in the minds of our representatives? How do they justify to themselves this type of thinking on their own part? Are there some unspoken rules upon entering service in our state houses? Does orientation for freshmen legislators pump their heads full of nonsense like this,"Legislators are not to determine for themselves what is 'constitutional' or not, rather that role is given to the judiciary branch of government. Legislators write law and pass law, and the judiciary, the Supreme Court, judges whether the law is constitutional." 
    See what I mean? These subtle notions cloud and convolute the fact that "Good neighbors do their civic duty to support and defend our Supreme Laws of the land."  ...and little ol' Russ is being a nuisance calling us out on it! Russ is actually demanding that we be good neighbors, and if we don't support and defend our Supreme Law of the Land, then Russ portrays us as bad neighbors on his blog... 
   See the pickle I am in? If I try to get my issues resolved correctly, then I am a nuisance and a threat, and further communication with me must be avoided in order to keep their name out of my blog. 
    Apparently, what I want is the opposite of what our reps and government employees want. I want accountability to "Good neighbors do their civic duty to support and defend our Supreme Laws of the land." Good grief! What is wrong with that? Why can't we hold our government employees and representatives to our constitutions? No one in government wants to take responsibility to holding their colleagues to supporting and defending our Supreme Law of the Land. Do these people see how ridiculous they look? Geeze... there is joy and a clear conscience when you do the right thing, but these people think that protecting out of control government employees is the right thing. And I can't force anyone to be good neighbors. They need to WANT TO BE good neighbors doing their civic duty. That is why they need that epiphany! Our representatives really do need to get out of the fog of nonsense and define the jurisdiction of Administrative Law. 
     On June 24th, I emailed the entire legislature of Washington State. I got a few good responses, but not enough. Obviously, my issues are not important enough to draw the attention of most of our representatives. And those that are concerned are not united with other concerned legislators. It is a pretty haphazard way of governing. We "individual citizens" need lots of money to get their attention, or we need a great deal of public awareness with a news media that keeps the public aware. Otherwise, little people like me just get shoved aside. Also obviously, the news media isn't going to pick up a little story like mine. It would be a great story to do about a little guy schooling government lawyers and legislators, but the established news media will not side with the little guy if it places government in a bad light disregarding our Supreme Law of the Land. 
    So, let me irritate some state legislators who had the courage to respond to my email. First, here is my email to all legislators:
Sen/Rep So and so,
Have you read any legal definitions of Administrative Law? The definitions I 
have read follow my assessment in my most recent post to my Blog: 


It is easy to see how over-zealous and ill-informed government employees could 
misapply their Adm. Law. It is also easy to see how the broad definitions could 
be used to pull the wool over the eyes of a "citizen legislator." Bottom line 
though, Adm. Law that is repugnant to our Supreme Law of the Land is "null and 
void of law," Marbury v. Madison. 

Please verify for yourself that all fine revenue collected by the Department of 
L& I goes into the Department's own budget, and not into the general fund. How's 
that for motivating bureaucrats to subjectively push the limits of issuing 
intimidating fines for publishing a list of skills?

We need a victory and a correction if We the People are to survive.

RESPONSE REQUESTED:  Russ has requested a response to this message.

Here is a response:


I wanted to take a moment to let you know that the Senator reviewed your email 
message and couldn't agree with you more. He is very aware of L & I and they are 
keeping a watchful eye on the way they do business. He asked me to thank you for 
the heads-up.

See? They know something is wrong, but they don't correct it.
Here is another response:

Thanks for contacting me, Russ.  If ever there were a poster child for maddening 
bureaucracy, it's L&I!  They serve neither employers nor injured employees well, 
at all.  Compared to about all other state agencies, L&I has got to be the 

Interesting question you raise about the constitutionality of administrative 
law...  The Administrative Procedures Act has been found to be constitutional, 
as it covers public authority DELEGATED to agencies from the Legislature, and 
challenges are brought against agencies for exceeding that authority (often 
called "arbitrary and capricious").

I do not deny, however, that there are too many zealous bureaucrats exceeding 
their authority and who are not held accountable.  I very much share your 
concerns.  In fact, I used to be a state agency director down in Olympia back in 
the 1990s and I saw too many abuses of that sort.

Thanks again for contacting me, Russ.  I appreciate your stimulating me to think 
about things a little more!

All best wishes,

See? They know stuff is wrong, but they don't know what to do about it. The answer is simple. Just be a good neighbor supporting and defending our Supreme Law of the Land according to their Oath of Office. This guy irritated me because he talks out of both sides of his mouth, or thinks he is helpless to do anything about the "maddening bureaucracy." Evidently, someone "found the Administrative Procedures Act to be constitutional" and that is the end of it. In his mind, there is nothing more he can do...  Good grief! He even admits that there are "too many zealous bureaucrats exceeding their authority!" Great stuff! But, where is he on holding government employees to supporting our Supreme Law of the Land? He is haphazard in his thinking!!! He does need to think about these things a little more... I responded in order to get him thinking some more:

Thank you for responding. Thank you very much. Please allow me to comment on one of your statements, though. Here is your quote:

"The Administrative Procedures Act has been found to be constitutional, as it covers public authority DELEGATED to agencies from the Legislature..."

The proper application of Administrative Law WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM is constitutional. So, please!!! Let's not talk past each other. We can find a way to keep our communication and understanding clear, simple, and concise.
My previous communication with you pointed to a blog post that shows how the bureaucrats are applying Administrative Law OUTSIDE the administration of their program, and applying it to the general public as if the general public has consented and contracted to give up our constitutionally protected right to publish, and our constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial by jury, and agreed to have our guilt or innocence decided by an Administrative Law Judge in a year long Appeals process.

So, on a personal basis, when did I and a lot of other folks give up our right to publish a list of our skills and our right to a speedy trial by jury and agree to be fined $1500.00 for posting a flier on a private bulletin board in order to serve our neighbors and make new friends? I and many others have not entered into contract to participate in the administration of a government licensing program, or any other program.
Is there really a statute on the books that makes criminals out of people who post innocent truthful fliers on private bulletin boards? And does not provide for a speedy trial where the accused can face his accusers before a jury of good neighbors?
I am not trying to be provocative. I am just trying to clearly communicate so that I can get you to think about these things. I mean, I grew up believing we have a Supreme Law of the Land, as stated in the Washington State Constitution.

Also note that the legislature cannot "delegate powers" THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE to agencies which are created for the benefit of the voluntary participants in the agency's program. No government agency can FORCEFULLY take away our constitutionally protected right to publish truthful and un-obscene fliers. No government agency can take away our right to a speedy trial by jury. It was actions like these that provoked the writing of our Declaration of Independence. However, a government agency can contract with an individual who voluntarily signs a contract(or application) to participate in the program under the terms (administrative law) of the contract.

We need statesmen who understand these things. We need to maintain a society of good neighbors who do their civic duty to support and defend our constitutions against all enemies foreign and domestic with liberty and justice for all. Too many young men and women have given life and limb to defend our liberty and constitutions against all enemies, foreign and domestic! Bureaucrats have no moral authority to disregard our duly ratified state and federal constitutions. In fact, it used to be considered treasonous to disregard our Supreme Laws of the Land. Seems to me there is a lot of confusion and unclear thinking/communication going on in the halls of government. ...leading to abuse and tyranny.
Thanks again for responding,


    I phoned my Representative Shelley Short. I talked to her Legislative Assistant who said that Shelley is busy attending meetings in Olympia. She said that Shelly would be glad to talk with me, and will call when she returns from Olympia. The LA kept saying that Shelley's "Handyman Bill" is still a priority of Shelley's. Again, why are these people so obsessed with "bills?" I told her that I was not really concerned about the bill, but I would rather have the issue resolved according to our constitutions. I said that it appears to me that the government employees do not want the issue resolved according to our constitutions. They want it to remain unresolved so that they can carry on with their current activities, which is issuing revenue citations to people.
    How can I come to any other conclusions than what I have written here? Obviously, no one in the state government wants to be schooled by little ol' Russ. Well, I'd like to be schooled by some of my public servants. But they won't talk to me. I think it would be great to get a call from the Director of WDLI and have him walk me through Administrative law, its historic application, and how it complies with our Supreme Law of the Land. Are they afraid to talk to me? I'll drive over there if invited to have a face to face conversation. Or, they could send me a letter answering my questions. Honest open dialogue is a good thing! This blog is a good thing if you are on the side of  "Good neighbors do their civic duty to support and defend our Supreme Laws of the land."  It is too simple! Too simple for government employees with convoluted minds to have that epiphany... my goodness!
    I'd like it if Shelley would school me on those things. She would have to research it and learn about it herself, and that would uncloud her mind. We need representatives with unclouded minds! And courage to stand on our Supreme Law of the Land. 

   On the speculation I mentioned in the heading, something interesting happened at the Supreme Court for the State of Washington. Supreme Court Justice James Johnson resigned. James Johnson was not one of the justices who "unanimously" decided to deny my Request for Waiver of Fees. However, I did mail him the same letter I sent to the 5 of 9 Justices who "unanimously" decided to deny my Request. James Johnson resigned and has now joined up with the Freedom Foundation. Check out the story here:

Hmmm... Can I speculate that my letter in my January 1, 2014, UPDATE had an influence on his decision to resign?  I wonder...

No comments:

Post a Comment